Bostick and Sullivan: Photo Historic 2019 Alt Photo Competition winners announced

[Vaughn]

Glad to see that Jim Fitzerald, who posts here, has a piece in the show!

Anyone else?

https://www.photo-historica.com/finalselections

[Jan Pietrzak]

...and lets not forget that Vaughn also has a print in the show...hehehehe...jp

[Jim Fitzgerald]

Vaughn, it will be nice to be in the show together... finally.

[Tin Can]

All images presented are very nice work

:)

[Winger]

Congratulations! There are some fantastic images!

[Alan Klein]

Which one is Jim's?

[Vaughn]

Jim's is:

Twisted Elk, Shore Acres

You can get to the names but one has to click on the image and then hover over the image. Not straight forward.

A great selection of image types and processes.

[Roger Thoms]

Which one is Jim's?

I’m going to guess the oak tree. Really surprised they don’t give the photographers names. Vaughn’s was easy.

Roger

[Jim Fitzgerald]

Like Vaughn said you have to click on the image and then hover your mouse over it and it will tell everything. My tree is not an oak this time. It is the trunk of a giant redwood or Cypress, I'm not really sure..... I should find out. There is a lot of fine work that has been selected.

[Vaughn]

Not a redwood -- too close to the coast -- my guess is spruce.

[Roger Thoms]

I’ll have to try again and see if I can get the info to come up, guess worst case I guess I’ll have to fire up my computer. Some very nice work.

Roger

[bob carnie]

Glad to see that Jim Fitzerald, who posts here, has a piece in the show!

Anyone else?

https://www.photo-historica.com/finalselections

Vaughn - were original prints submitted for viewing or jpegs of the prints... I am not comfortable to have work submitted to any online call for entry or competition where real prints are not being evaluated. with PS and lightroom a potato can become a diamond.

but I do congratulate those of you I recognize

[Vaughn]

Vaughn - were original prints submitted for viewing or jpegs of the prints... I am not comfortable to have work submitted to any online call for entry or competition where real prints are not being evaluated. with PS and lightroom a potato can become a diamond.

but I do congratulate those of you I recognize
With my digital skills (or lack of them) I was at a disadvantage with the judging by computer files. I thought the awards should have been judged from the real thing, but if your judge is from out-of-the-area, then that is difficult. The cost and effort required to judge entries into a show directly from the work is high and has traditionally been done using slides. The exception is local shows.

[Jim Fitzgerald]

Bob, yes the show was judged from jpegs. I'm no computer wiz either so I'm always at a disadvantage as well. I juried one local show from the original images and what a differences that makes. I wonder how many times work is rejected when the original shows up and doesn't match the jpeg? Also I agree with Vaughn in that the originals should have been judged for the awards. This is the first show so there is a learning curve. It is nice to be included with all others in this show.

[William Whitaker]

Some very nice work. And quite inspirational. Clearly some very talented folks. I'm left hungry to see the original prints.
It seems painfully ironic that a show dedicated to handmade prints should be judged from jpegs.

[bob carnie]

Some very nice work. And quite inspirational. Clearly some very talented folks. I'm left hungry to see the original prints.
It seems painfully ironic that a show dedicated to handmade prints should be judged from jpegs.

This is why I am very leery of presenting work this way, I have now got a copy setup and am researching the best digital back - capture one - to create high quality jpegs to show my work, in fact this
is one of the reasons I do not have a personal website anymore as the screen really only gives a hint of what the prints will look like and to many what I show looks like lousy ink jet prints due to the failure of the system
It really is problematic... I know Jim and Vaughn's prints are good I can imagine what they look like as a printer, Christopher James has the credibility to be able to do this as well so in this call for entries I can see the logic
but it is really impossible for the average curator or gallerist to be able to comprehend what a fine quality print looks like and therefore I feel we are a bit at a disadvantage as photographers who print their own work.

The value of a well crafted image on paper is a skill many do not appreciate, only time and exhibiting a lot in diverse galleries will this craft/skill become more important, where galleries are selling photographic objects.

[Tin Can]

If I may intrude,

I was pleasantly surprised IRL with the recent Print Exchange.

The Platinum print really stood out when all were on my table at once.

Also the large variety of papers used, made a noticeable viewing difference, chosen to be best for each print image style.

The Photogravure print could never be represented properly by digital, it's embossed!

[Jim Fitzgerald]

I agree with Bob when he says so many people do not appreciate a well crafted print. Crafting a fine print is as much as an art as finding the image. Getting galleries to appreciate a finely crafted print is the challenge. Submitting to shows gets your work out there but it is a crap shoot when they judge from jpegs.

[Vaughn]

Some very nice work. And quite inspirational. Clearly some very talented folks. I'm left hungry to see the original prints.
It seems painfully ironic that a show dedicated to handmade prints should be judged from jpegs.
But at least it was judged by someone who is very familiar with alt processes and how they get represented online and in print.

Randy -- carbon prints can have a raised relief -- talk about a disappointment in digital representation!

[Tin Can]

Perhaps I have seen a carbon print at Art Institute Chicago, but I don't know.

I will try harder!

Next stop is St Louis International Photography Hall of Fame (http://iphf.org/)

They will have a few



But at least it was judged by someone who is very familiar with alt processes and how they get represented online and in print.

Randy -- carbon prints can have a raised relief -- talk about a disappointment in digital representation!

[adelorenzo]

I struggle with this as well. Everything currently on my website is film scans/digitally edited that are 3+ years old. My newer work which is all prints I can't seem to get them reproduced for online use. I submit digital photos of them to artist calls but I always struggle getting a good representation. It doesn't help that I don't own a digital camera other than my phone.

It's hard to imagine doing it any other way though. The practicality of online submissions is tough to beat.

Some really great images in that Bostick and Sullivan show and congratulations to all the forum members who are part of it.